AGENDA - Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability ... TAC Meeting Agenda Pa… · Technical Advisory Committee Meeting │ October 13, 2015 │ Agenda Hampton Roads Transportation

TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMeeting│October13,2015│Agenda

HamptonRoadsTransportationAccountabilityCommissionTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee

October13,20159:30AM–11:30AM

TheRegionalBuildingConferenceRoomD,723WoodlakeDrive,Chesapeake,Virginia

AGENDA

9:30am 1. CalltoOrder2. MinutesoftheAugust20,2015TACMeeting

(Attachment2)RecommendedAction:Approval

3. Tolling/FinancingofHighwayFacilitiesDiscussion‐CDMSmith,HNTB,andPFMPresentationsRecommendedAction:Forinformation

4. NewBusiness5. NextMeeting:

November17,20159:30a.m.–11:30a.m.TheRegionalBuildingBoardRoom723WoodlakeDriveChesapeake,VA23320Adjournment

TechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMeeting│October13,2015│AgendaActionItem2Briefing/Motion

AgendaItem2ActionItem

To: ChairCrawfordandtheothermembersofHRTACTACFrom:KevinPageDate:October13,2015Re: August20,2015MeetingMinutes Recommendation:TheHRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeisaskedtoprovideapprovalofitsAugust20,2015meetingminutes.Background:TheHRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeprovidesapprovalofitsmeetingminutesforthepermanentrecordoftheHRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee.FiscalImpact:ThereisnofiscalimpactinrelationtothisActionItem.SuggestedMotion:MotionistoapprovetheminutesoftheHRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteemeetingonAugust20,2015.

HRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMeeting–SummaryMinutes‐Page1August20,2015PreparedbyS.Forehand,ESSI

Attachment2I-1350319.2

HamptonRoadsTransportationAccountabilityCommission(HRTAC)TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee(TAC)

SummaryMinutesoftheAugust20,2015MeetingTheHamptonRoadsTransportationAccountabilityCommission(HRTAC)TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee(TAC)heldameetingonAugust20,2015intheRegionalBoardRoom,723WoodlakeDrive,Chesapeake,Virginia. Themeeting tookplace in twoparts.ThefirstwasaJointSessionwithHRTAC,whichbeganat9:00a.m.whentheChairofHRTACcalled thatmeeting toorder (theChairof theTAC formallycalledtheTACmeetingtoorderat10:39a.m.,duringtheJointSession).Thesecondpartofthe TAC meeting took place after the HRTAC meeting adjourned. The followingwereinattendance:HRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMembersinAttendance:NealCrawford,Chair* W.SheppardMiller,IIILynnAllsbrook C.EarlSorey,Jr.JoeFrank JodyWagner*HarryLesterHRTACMembersinAttendancefortheJointSession:WilliamSessoms,Jr.,Chair AlanKrasnoffClydeHaulman,ViceChair* McKinleyPrice*SenatorKennethAlexander TomShepperd,Jr.*PaulFraim SenatorFrankWagner*MichaelHipple GeorgeWallaceDelegateJohnnyJoannou KennethWright*LindaJohnson* DelegateDavidYancey*DelegateChrisJones* CharlieKilpatrickHRTACExecutiveDirector:KevinPageHRTPOExecutiveDirectorfortheJointSession:RobertCrumOtherParticipants:SecretaryAubreyLayne DavidMillerDeputySecretaryGrindlyJohnson DaleStithTomInglima JamesUtterbackHRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMembersAbsent:HelenDragas,ViceChairJamesKoch



*DenotesLateArrivalorEarlyDepartureOthersRecordedAttendingfortheJointSession:Bill Cashman, Patrick Childs, Daniella Cossu, Tom Frantz, John Gergely, DonnaSayegh, David Thompson, Nikki Williams (Citizens); James Baker (CH); RandyMartin (FR); Mary Bunting, Brian DeProfio (HA); Bryan Hill (JC); Thelma Drake,BrittanyForman,BrianPennington,JeffreyRaliski,RonWilliams(NO);JimBourey,BryanStilley, JerriWilson(NN);BrannonGodfrey (PO);RandyWheeler (PQ);EricNielsen,PatrickRoberts (SU);AngelaBezik,BobMatthias, JimSpore (VB);MarrinCollins (WM); Neil Morgan (YO); John Dixon (Atlantic Contracting); Bob Long(AmericanConcretePavementAssociation);ElizabethArnold(CH2M);FrankPapcin(Citizens Advisory Committee); John Herzke (Clarke Nexsen); James Openshaw(CTAC); Scott Forehand, Don Quisenberry, Mickey Shutt (eScribeSolutions); RyanBanas, Phil Rinehart (HNTB); Bert Ramsay (Lane Construction); Tracy Baynard(McGuireWoodsConsulting,LLC);DeborahBrown(ParsonsBrinkerhoff);RonaldoT. Nicholson (Parsons Transportation Group); Mark Geduldig‐Yatrofsky(Portsmouthcitywatch.org); Sachin Katkar (RK&K Engineers); Mindy Hughes(Seventh Point Transportation PR); Ellis W. James (Sierra Club, NEC Observer);RobertK.Dean(TidewaterLibertarianParty);DiannaHoward(TLP,VBTA,VBTP);DustyHolcombe(VAP3Office);AngelDeem,JamesW.Long,III,PaulaMiller,DawnOdom, Scott Smizik (VDOT); Amber Randolph (Willcox & Savage); Kelli Arledge,Nancy Collins, Andrea Gayer, Randy Keaton,Mike Long, Chris Vaigneur (HRPDC);RobertCase,KathleneGrauberger,DanettaJankosky,MikeKimbrel,DavidPritchard(HRTPO)PublicCommentPeriod(limit5minutesperindividual)PubliccommentsweremadeattheopeningoftheJointSession.HRTACMeetingJointSessionPortions of the HRTAC RegularMeeting and TACMeeting ran concurrently. TheminutesfromtheconcurrentHRTACmeetingareasfollows:PresentationsChairSessomsnotedthattheCommissionwasabouttoreceivealotofinformationthatwassuretogeneratealotofdiscussionanddebate.HewelcomedSecretaryofTransportationAubreyLaynetothemeetingandthankedhimforcoming.SecretaryLaynetookthefloorandcongratulatedMr.KevinPageonhisnewpositionasHRTACExecutiveDirector,andMr.RobertCrumonhisnewpositionastheHRTPOExecutiveDirector.



SecretaryLaynegaveanoverviewoftheHamptonRoadsTransportationPlanningOrganization(HRTPO):

FederallyMandatedEntity; PurposeistodeveloptheConstrainedLongRangePlan;and IncludesTechnicalandPlanningCommitteeswhoseprimaryfunctionisto

getprojectsinthequeuetobefunded.SecretaryLaynegaveanoverviewoftheHamptonRoadsTransportationAccountabilityCommission(HRTAC):

RelativelyNewEntity; StateCreatedEntity; Existstomonitorandacceptregionalmonies,especiallyHouseBill2313

(HB2313)monies; Primarilyafundingorganization,notaplanningorganization; Hastheabilitytotoll,butnottoraisetaxes; SimilartotheNorthernVirginiaTransportationAuthorityandthe

ChesapeakeBayBridgeandTunnelAssociation; MoniesdepositedintheHamptonRoadsTransportationFundarestrictlyfor

useonhighwaysandbridges,notforuseonlightrailorothertransit;and Responsibleformakingfinancing/fundingdecisionsforHRTPO‐identified

projects.SecretaryLaynegaveanoverviewoftheCommonwealthTransportationBoard(CTB):

DelegatedauthoritytoallocateStateandFederalfunds; Doesnothaveauthoritytoallocateregionalfunds;and Responsibletoselectpreferredalternativesonmajorprojects.

SecretaryLayneremarkedthatHouseBill2(HB2)wasthemostsignificantchangetothewayprojectswerefundedintheCommonwealthsincethe1930s.HecontinuedthatHB2nowrequiresthatallcapacityexpansion,specificallyprojectsthatwillbeplacedontheSixYearImprovementPlan,mustgothroughascoringprocessandthenberecommendedbytheCTB.Herelayedthatthehighestscoringprojectsweretobetheonesthatreceivedtherecommendation,andincaseswherealowerscoringprojectwasrecommendedoverahigherscoringproject,thereasonswhymustbepubliclystated.HecommentedthatHB2scoringweightsmeasuresdifferentlyinvariousregionsofthestate.Henotedthatthesixscoringmeasureswere:

CongestionMitigation; EconomicDevelopment;



Accessibility; Safety; EnvironmentalQuality;and LandUse.

HeexplainedthebasiceligibilityrequirementsforaprojecttobescoredaspartoftheHB2process:

ItmustbeanidentifiedneedinVTrans2040; Itneedstobeacapitalortransportationdemandimprovement; Itcannotbeforoperatingormaintenancemoney; Itmusthaveadefinedscope; WhereNEPAisinvolved,apreferredalternativemustalreadyhavebeen

selected; Fundingcomponentsmustbeidentified;and ItmustbeincludedintheHRTPOLongRangeConstrainedPlan.

SecretaryLayneprovidedanexampleregardinghowthedifferentscoringmeasurescanaffectthefinalscore,especiallywhenbenefittocostisconsidered.Hesuggestedthataprojectmightscorehighlyonthebenefitssideoftheequation,butbeextremelyexpensive,causingtheultimatefinalscoretobelow.HeexplainedthatHRTAC’sabilitytoprovidetollingasafundingsourcemaycauseHRTACprojectstoscorehigher,becausethecostofthestateportionoftheprojectcanbemitigated.SecretaryLayneexplainedthatwhenaprojectisselectedthroughtheHB2scoringprocess,thatitwillbefundedtocompletion.Henotedthatinthepast,manyprojectswerebeingpartiallyfunded,butnothingwasgettingbuilt.HesuggestedthattheHB2scoringprocessisgoingtocausefewerprojectstoreceiveallocations,butmoreprojectstobecompleted.SecretaryLayneprovidedthatwecurrentlyhavea$13billionSixYearImprovementPlan.UnderHB2,only$600millionisavailable,andmostlyintheoutyears.Hefurtherreiteratedthatifaprojectgetsin,itwillbefundedtofruition.SecretaryLayneexpressedacommonconcernregardingwhetherasmallprojectinRuralVirginiacouldbeobjectivelycomparedtoamajorprojectinametropolitanarea.HecontinuedthatasecondconcernwasthatmoneywasstillprimarilycontrolledattheCTBlevel.HenotedthatHouseBill1887(HB1887),sponsoredbyDelegateChrisJonesandsupportedintheSenatebySenatorFrankWagner,wasdesignedtoremedythoseconcerns.Heexplainedthatthepreviouslyobserved40interstate/30primary/30secondaryformulawasnolongerused.



Heexplainedthatinthenewmodel,45%ofallmonieswillgotostateofgoodrepair,whichisessentiallymaintenanceoftheexistingnetwork.HenotedthateachoftheconstructiondistrictsintheCommonwealthwillgetbetween5.5%and17.5%fromthispool,furtherexplainingthattheHamptonRoadsdistrictisoneofthehighestrecipientsintheCommonwealthandwillreceive14%.Hecontinuedthattheremaining55%willbedividedintotwoparts,onebeingthehighprioritystatewidecomponentthatwillremainwiththeCTBforprojectsthatgothroughHB2scoring,andtheremaining27.5%willstillbeprocessedthroughtheHB2scoring,butwillimmediatelybeprovidedtotheconstructiondistricts.HeaddedthattheconstructiondistrictswiththeirCTBrepresentativewilldeterminewhichprojectsreceivethosefunds.Heexplainedthatatthedistrictlevel,projectswillbecompetingwithotherprojectsfromtheirdistrict,andnototherprojectsaroundthestate.Heindicatedthatcompetitionatthestatewidelevelwillbefierce,andsmallerprojectsarenotanticipatedtoscorewell.Heemphasizedthehigherdegreeoftransparencyexpectedfromthisnewprocess.Headdedtwocaveatstohispresentation.First,thattheCTBisstillfullyinchargeandhastheabilitytostopfundingononeprojectinlieuoffundinganotherproject.HeexplainedthatonescenariowherecouldoccurisifoneoftheHRBTtunnelsfails,andtheCTBwoulddeterminethatimmediaterepairwasrequired.Second,henotedthatifa$2billionprojectscoresthehighestofallprojects,buttheCTBsimplydoesn’thavethefundstoaccommodatetheproject,theCTBcouldchoosetheprojectinsecondposition.ChairSessomsnotedtheCommissionhadachievedaquorum.HecommentedthatthereasonforthedelayedarrivalofmanyCommissionmemberswasdirectlyduetoroadissues.HethenwelcomedCommissionerCharlieKilpatrickfromVDOT.Mr.KilpatrickrecountedthatthismorninginthatthesigntotheHRBTsaid17miles,34minutes.HechosethatrouteinsteadoftheMMBT,whichheremarkedinretrospectwouldhavehadagreaterdelaybecausetheHighRiseBridgehadadisabledvehiclecausingalengthybackup.Mr.KilpatrickbeganhispresentationexplainingtheenvironmentalprocessandtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA).HenotedthattheNEPAprocessisrequiredonanycontemplatedprojectthatisfederallysignificantorfederallyfunded.HenotedthattheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)providesapprovalononeofthreetiers,whichare:

RecordofDecision; FindingofNoSignificantImpact;and



CategoricalExclusion.HeexplainedthattheFHWAisinvolvedonmostprojectswithapermittingdecision,whichmustalsogothroughNEPA.Heexplainedthatsometimestheprocesseshappenconcurrently,sometimesnot.Hesaidsometimesadocumentisaccepted,andsometimesitwillrequireadditionalwork.HealsonotedthatfortheArmyCorpsofEngineerstoissueapermit,theNEPAprocessisrequired.HedescribedtheenvironmentalstudiesconductedfortheoriginalHamptonRoadsCrossing,specificallythestudiesassociatedwiththeHRBT,MMBT,andInterstate64fromBowersHilltotheHamptonColiseum.HenotedthatthefirstEnvironmentalImpactStudy(EIS)beganinthe1990sandapreferredalternativewasselectedin2001.Heexplainedthattheprocesstypicallystartswithnumerousalternatives,andeventuallyoneischosenovertherest.Henotedthatare‐evaluationwasdonein2003,andapartialre‐evaluationofthePatriot’sCrossing(theEast/WestlegoftheThirdCrossing)wasinitiatedin2013.HenotedthatafterconsultationwiththeFHWAandotherfederalpartners,itisdeterminedthatanadditionalre‐evaluationisneededatthistime.SecretaryLayneaddedthatthereasonthesedocumentsneedare‐evaluationisthattheyareolderthanthe460projectdocuments,andtheyknowthatapermitwillnotbegivenwithoutre‐evaluation.Mr.KilpatricknotedthataNEPAstudywasinitiatedfortheHRBT,andadraftEISwascreatedin2012;howeveraNEPAdecisionwasneverprovided.Hesummarizedthattherewasneverafederaldecisionontheaction,andapreferredalternativewasneverchosen.ForthewatercrossingprojectsinHamptonRoads,theyhaveinitiatedtheenvironmentalstudyprocess.HerelayedthattheywerenotrequiredtoprovideanewEIS,butwereinsteadbeingallowedtoprovideaSupplementalEnvironmentalImpactStudy(SEIS).HeemphasizedthattheSEISwasanextensivere‐evaluation.HeindicatedthefollowingreasonsfordoinganSEIS:

ChangesinLandUse; ChangesinPopulation; EnvironmentalJusticeIssues; UpdatedTrafficProjectionsandPatterns; ChangestotheLongRangePlan; ChangestoThreatenedorEndangeredSpecies; HistoricProperties; UpdateNavigationDocumentation;and CostEstimatesofScopeandScale.



HesuggestedthatthetimingoftheprocesspointedtoapreferredalternativeandRecordofDecisionbylate2017.HeexplainedthattheArmyCorpsofEngineerschallengeisthattheyhavetopermittheLeastEnvironmentallyDamagingPracticableAlternative(LEDPA),whichhedidrecognizeashavingbothasignificanttechnicaldetailcomponentandsubjectivityconcerns.RegardingtheHighRideBridgeProject,Mr.KilpatricknotedtheEnvironmentalAssessment,adocumenthedescribedasbeingonetierdownfromafullenvironmentaldocument,wascompletedthisyear.Headdedthatapreferredalternativehadbeenchosen,andtheCTBhadvotedonit.Herelayedthattheywerewaitingonidentificationofafundingsourceandafederaldecision.Heexpectedbothtobeforthcoming,andthentheprojectcanmovetothenextphase,whichisdesign.Next,Mr.KilpatrickdiscussedtheI‐64Wideningprojectnoting:

Segment1:Underwayandthecontracthasbeenawarded;theEISwasissuedinNovemberof2013;theyhavereceivedtheRecordofDecision(RoD);

Segment2:Movingforward;theyhaveaRoD;theprojectisoutforbidtoashort‐listedsetofbidders;bidsareexpectedinthenext60days;theyexpectawardbytheendofthisyear;

Segment3:PursuingRoD;theyexpectdecisionsonfundingandRoDin2016;theyexpecttobeginprocurementinlate2016or2017;and

Segment4:ReconstructionoftheFortEustisInterchange;potentialfundingin2019.

ThelastprojectMr.KilpatrickspokeaboutwastheI‐64/I‐264InterchangeProject.HenotedthattheprojecthadgonethroughaCategoricalExclusion.Henotedthatthisprojectwentthroughthesimplestenvironmentalprocessandconsistedmainlyofoperationalimprovements.HeexplainedthatthiswasaHRTACfundedproject.Withtheenvironmentaldocumentcomplete,thenextphasesoftheprojectaretofundit,engineerit,procureRight‐of‐Way,andbuildit.SecretaryLayneagaintookthefloorandspokeofdocumentfreshness.Heremarkedthatifanenvironmentaldocumentismorethan36monthsold,federalauthoritieswouldrequirere‐evaluation.Healsoaddedthatafundingsourcewouldalsoneededtobeidentifiedinthattimeperiodorthedocumentwouldneedtoberedone.Next,SecretaryLaynedescribedthatthefederalgovernmentisonanother4‐monthextensionbeforefundingcommitmentscanbemade.Heisexpectingthe



Commonwealthtoreceiveaboutthesameamounttheyhavereceivedinthelastfewyears.Heprovidedinsightintothereductioninfunding,citingreducedgastaxrevenue.DelegateChrisJonesstated,andSecretaryLayneconfirmed,thattobeinthemixofconsiderationforthe$600millionoffundsfromthestateyourprojectmusthaveapermitorreasonableexpectationtoreceiveapermit,andafundingplan.SecretaryLaynewentontosaythattheHRTPOhassubmittedanineligibleplanforhighspeedrailtoNorthernVirginia,andtheHighRiseBridgeProjectdidnothaveapreferredalternative.HereiteratedthatproposalsneededtobesubmittedbyOctober1,2015tobeconsideredforthe$600millionavailableforhighpriorityprojects.HeaddedthattheI‐66projectisgoingtobesubmitted,wasmuchfurtheralongintheprocess,hadapreferredalternative,andwasidentifiedinitsLongRangePlan.Henotedagainthatonceaprojectisfunded,itisfundedthroughfruition.ChairSessomsaskediftheysubmittedaprojectbeforethedeadline,butdidnothaveafinancialplaninplace,howmuchadditionaltimetheywouldbeaffordedtocompletethatprocess.SecretaryLaynerespondedthattheyshouldasktheCTBforanextensiontomaybetheendoftheyearsincethisisayearoftransition.DelegateJonesaskedforclarificationregardingapotentialextensionforthefinancialplan.SecretaryLaynesuggestedthathewouldsubmitconditionallyandasktheCTBforlenience.DelegateJonesquestionediftherewasatwo‐yeargapafternextyearforadditionalregionaldollarscomingfromthehighpriorityprojectpool.SecretaryLayneconfirmedDelegateJones’statement.SecretaryLayneexplainedthattheCTBwillalternateyearsoflookingatgoodrepairversusnewconstruction.Hesummarizedtheprocessthatifaprojectwasnotinwithinthenext2years,thechanceswerethatitwouldbe5yearsatminimumbeforestatewidegrantmoneywouldbecomeavailableagain.Hesaidtheyareexpectinghundredsofsubmissionsandtheyareexpectedtobeextremelycompetitive.Mr.TomSheppardaskedforthesignificanceofthelocaldistrict’s$80millionclaim.SecretaryLayneexplainedthat$120millionisalreadycoming,andapproximately$40millionperyearforeachofthenexttwoyearsisslatedtocome,bringingthetotaloverthenexttwocyclesforguaranteedmoneytothedistrictto$200million.Mr.AlanKrasnoffaskedforclarificationfromRobertCrumregardingtheinclusionoftheHighRiseBridgeProjectintotheLongRangePlan.Mr.CrumclarifiedthattheHighRiseBridgeisintheLongRangeConstrainedPlan.SecretaryLaynethenaddedthatprojectiseligibletobescored.



Mr.GeorgeWallaceaskedwhatcouldbedonetoexpeditetheprocessandifitwastheirplanningprocessthatwasblockingaccess.ChairSessomsconfirmedMr.Wallace’sassessment.Mr.Wallaceagainquestionediftherewasanyscramblingthatcouldbedonetoavoidmissingtheupcomingfundingopportunities.ChairSessomsaskedforarecommendationfromVDOT.Mr.KilpatricksuggestedthatpotentiallysubmittingSegment3orSegment4oftheI‐64Wideningprojectmightbeprudent,sincetherewillbeadelayinfundingoftwoyearsormore,whichwillcoincidewithwhenthoseprojectswouldbereadyforfunding.Mr.Kilpatrickofferedthatthe$600millionofstatewidehighpriorityprojectsmoneyisgoingtobedeliveredoverthenext6years,andthattheentirestatewascompetingforthemoney.Ms.CathieFrancequeriedabouttheeffectoflocalandregionalfundstowhichSecretaryLayneansweredtomoveforwardwiththeprojectandsubmitwithahigherpossibilityofsuccessfulscoringforregionalmonies.Headdedthatifsuccessful,youcouldthenreimbursethemonies,andnotedtheyalsoshouldbeawarethatthosefundswouldnotbeavailableuntiltheoutyearsoftheproject.Regardingbonding,SecretaryLaynestatedthatyoudon’tbondwhat’sinthebank,youbondwhat’sgoingforward.HeprovidednoticeofsomeofthelessonslearnedbytheStaterecently.Henotedthatinlightofeventsassociatedwiththe460project,nolongerwilltheCTBmakeanydecisionforprojectswithstaleenvironmentaldocuments.Heusedthephrase“PolicyTrumpsFinancialConsiderations.”Hestatedthatpolicyshoulddrivethedecisions.Heexpressedsupportforthenotionthatwhenthereistolling,thereshouldalsobeafreealternative.Next,SecretaryLaynerevisitedtheDowntown/MidtownTunnelpre‐tollingissue.HestatedthattheCommonwealthwillnotrecognizethatprocessinthefuture.HenotedthattheCommonwealthpaid$212Milliontolowerthetollsthatweregoingtogenerate$200million.DelegateJonessuggestedthatinregardstotheI‐64WideningProjectSegments,itwouldbeashortsightedapproachtowaitforallthreesegmentstobereadytosubmitforscoring.Mr.Wallacesuggestedthatthechallengetheyarefacingistotakealloftheinformationtheyreceiveandputitintocontextsothatasixthgradercanunderstandit.Headdedthattherearesomeopportunitiestheyaremissingbecausetheydidnotanticipateneeds.Hesaidthathedidnotwantthattohappenagain,andexpressedinterestinenactingandfollowingpoliciesthatalignwiththeprojectsathand.ChairSessomsandMr.PaulFraimexpressedagreement.



Mr.SheppardMillerpraisedSecretaryLayneforhispresentationnotingthattheinformationprovidedwasmuchbetterthananythingpresentedpreviously.Heaskediffundingwascausingadelayingettingpreferredalternatives.SecretaryLaynerespondedthatfundingwasnottheissue,thatthefundingwaspresent,andthattheywerejustwaitingonfederalauthorities.Mr.SheppardMillerprovidedascenariotohelpdemonstratepreferredalternativedecisionmaking.SecretaryLayneclarifiedthescenariobystatingthattheCTBisultimatelyresponsible,especiallywithregardtostatewidemonies.Mr.SheppardMillerthenquestionedhowtheHighRiseBridgeis“constrained”.Mr.CrumsuggestedthatMs.DaleStithrespond.Ms.Stithdescribedthattherevenueforecastforthe20‐yearperiodisderivedbyobservationofhistoricalrevenues,andthenthatisusedtoconstrainthe2034LRTP.ShecontinuedthateightofthenineHRTACprojectswerefullyfundedandintheLRTP,withtheexceptionbeingthe664wideningproject.Mr.SheppardMillernextquestionedaboutadiscrepancyregarding$3.8billioninbondingcapacityversusthepreviously‐described$7billioninbondingcapacity.SecretaryLaynerespondedthathesuspectedthatifaplandidnotincludetolling,itwouldprobablynotreceivestatewidefunds.Mr.PaulFraimaskedifsomeonewouldwritedownwhattherealscopeoftheHighRiseBridgewasnow,expressingconcernsthatthescopehadgrownbeyondanythingonwhichtheyhadpreviouslyvoted.HeemphasizedtheimportanceofHRTACmembersunderstandingtheprojectandthefinancialimplicationsofwhattheyweregoingtoberecommendinginafewweeks.Mr.FraimrelayedhisdisappointmentwhenhelearnedthattheenvironmentaldocumentsfortheHamptonRoadsCrossingwerestale.HenotedthataletterfromtheArmyCorpsofEngineersin2012presentedtoVDOTexplainedthataSEISwasgoingtoberequired.HeaddedthatVDOTdidnotsharethatletterwiththeCityofNorfolkoranyotherlocalcommunity.Heexpressedhopesthattheydobettermovingforward.HeechoedMr.Miller’spraiseforthepresentations.Mr.Fraimrequestedacleardefinitioninwritingofwhata“managedlane”isversusa“tolledmanagedlane.”SecretaryLaynerespondedandgaveclarificationthatmanagedlanesincludeHOV.Abriefdiscussionensued.Mr.Fraimexplainedthathewantedtheexplanationinwritingsothathecouldholditupandprovideanexplanation.



Mr.FraimaskedifHRTACwasanorganizationthatcouldreceiveaP3proposal.SecretaryLayneconfirmedthatitwas.Mr.JoeFrankaskedifaprojectwassubmittedbytheOctober1deadline,butdidnotreceiveapproval,couldHRTACmoveforwardanyway.SecretaryLayneexplainedthatifaprojectgetsscoredbutdoesn’tgetthenumberoneposition,thattheprojectmaystillbefundedbasedonwhatmoneyisavailable.Healsoexplainedthatsolelythefailuretoreceivefundingdoesnotprecludetheprojectfrombeingmovedforwardwithregionalorlocalmonies.SecretaryLaynealsonotedthatiftheCTBsays“No”tothepreferredalternative,thatwouldbeadifferentstory.Mr.FraimexpressedconcernsonthetimingofenvironmentaldocumentsandthepotentialforthosedocumentstobecomestalewithregardtotheHamptonRoadsCrossingProject.SecretaryLaynecommentedthatthetimestartedtickingonceyoureceivedtheRecordofDecision.Mr.Kilpatrickaddedthatthedocumentstheyarecreatingnowwillincorporatewhattheyhavelearned,andthatthepermittingdecisionwillbemorerobust.Mr.FrankaskediftheCTBhasavetoofHRTAC‐approvedprojects,towhichSecretaryLayneexplainedthattheyalwaysdid.SecretaryLayneexplainedthatthedeterminationofthepreferredalternativelieswiththeCTB.ChairSessomsechoedpreviously‐madepositivecommentsregardingthepresentations,andrecognizedthataquorumwasnowpresent.HethenaskedforamotiontoapprovetheHRTACRegularMeetingAgenda.MichaelHipplemadeaMotiontoApprovetheHRTACRegularMeetingAgenda;secondedbyMr.KennethWright.ChairSessomsheldavoicevotetoapprovethemotion,andTheMotionCarriedUnanimously.ChairSessomsofferedthefloortoTACChairmanNealCrawford,whoaccepted.TACChairCrawfordformallycalledtheTACmeetingtoorderandaskedforamotiontoapprovetheTACMeetingAgenda.Mr.SheppardMillermadeaMotiontoApprovetheTACMeetingAgenda;secondedbyMr.HarryLester.TACChairCrawfordheldavoicevotetoapprovethemotion,andTheMotionCarriedUnanimously.ChairSessomsquestionedifHRTACCounselTomInglimahadanythinghewantedtoaddregardingtheHB2briefing.Mr.InglimaaskedforsomeclarificationfromSecretaryLaynethattheHRTPOistheregionalbodythatwouldapplyforstatewidepriorityprojects,whichwasconfirmedbySecretaryLayne.Mr.Inglimathen



positedwhetherlocalitiesthemselveswouldbeapplyingforthefundsfromtheConstructionDistrictGrantProgram(CDGP).SecretaryLaynesaidthattheycouldiftheyweregoingtosponsortheproject.Headdedthatabsentalocalitycomingforward,theHRTPOwouldhavetheresponsibilitytopursuetheprojectfundingfromtheCDGP.Mr.Inglima’sfinalquestionwasifitwerefeasiblefortheHRTPOtobundletheI‐64WideningProjectSegments2,3,and4asoneapplication.SecretaryLaynerespondedthatyoucanmaketheprojectaslargeorsmallasyouwantaslongasthescopesaredefined.DelegateJohnnyJoannourequestedclarificationoftherelationshipbetweentheHRTPOandHRTAC.Mr.InglimarespondedthattheHRTPOwasafederallymandatedMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(MPO)taskedwithplanningandprogrammingprojectsundertheFederalHighwaySystemregime.HeaddedthattheHRTACwasastate‐createdbodytaskedtoadministerfundingcreatedfortheHamptonRoadsTransportationFund(HRTF).DelegateJoannoureferencedaSupremeCourtCasethatsaidthatyouhadtobeanelectedpersonastheimpetusforthecreationoftheCommission.DelegateJoannounotedthattheHRTPOhassomefederalguidelinestofollow,butarenotguidedbystateguidelines.HeagainrequestedclarityoftherelationshipbetweentheHRTPOandHRTAC,andHRTACresponsibilitiestotheHRTPO.Mr.InglimareiteratedthattheHRTPOwasresponsibleforplanningandprogramming,andthatHRTACwastodeterminewhetherornottofundtheprojectfromtheHRTF.SecretaryLayneofferedadditionalclaritythatHRTACwasabouttollingandbonding,forwhichtheHRTPOdoesnothaveauthority.DelegateJoannouexpressedhisunderstandingofthecollectionandremissionbythestatetotheregionofthegastax.SecretaryLayneandDelegateJonesexplainedthatthetaxwasaregionaltax,butwascollectedbythestate(actingasthecollectionagent)sincetherewasn’taregionalmechanismtocollecttherevenue.TheythenexplainedthatthemoniesweretransferredfromthestatetotheHRTACwithregularity.SenatorFrankWagnerofferedthatifheweretogivetheFinanceCommitteereport,someadditionallightmightbeshedforDelegateJoannou.CommitteeReportsHRTACFinancialCommitteeReportSenatorFrankWagner,chairoftheFinanceCommittee,reportedthefollowing:

Abalanceofapproximately$293,500,000.00ondepositwithHRTACasofthemiddleofJuly2015;

Abalanceofapproximately$322,000,000.00asofAugust20,2015; DepositsreceivedfromtheVirginiaTreasurywereapproximately

$28,500,000.00;



Expectedincreasesof$10millionto$15millionpermonth;and Thefiguresquotedincludeapproximately$222,000ofcollectedintereston

depositedfunds.DelegateJoannounotedthathisquestionwasnotansweredafterhearingtheFinanceCommitteereport.DelegateJonesofferedthatitwasaregionaltaxandthecollectionmechanismusedwasthemostefficientwaytocollectthetaxwithoutcreatingaredundancyincost.DelegateJoannouaskedifitwasaregionaltaxthenwasn’tittruethatthepeopleoftheregiondidnotgettovoteforit.DelegateJonesofferedthatiswasataxenactedbytheGeneralAssembly,whichdoeshavethatauthority.DelegateJoannoufurtheraskedifthereasonitwasdonethatwaywasbecauseoftheSupremeCourtrulingstatingthatyoucan’ttaxpeoplewithoutthemhavingthepowertovoteforyou.DelegateJonesstatedthatitwasdonepursuanttowhatwasallowedbylaw.DelegateJonesreiteratedthatitwasnotaStatetax,butwasaregionaltaximposedontworegionsoftheStatebythelegislature,andheofferedtodiscussitfurtheroffline.DelegateJoannourestatedhisconcernsregardingwhetheritisconstitutionalunderVirginiaLawfortheHRTPOtoselecttheprojects.Hethenwonderedifthequestionshouldbedirectedtostaffcounsel.ChairSessomsobservedthathisconcernandquestionwillrequireresearchandnotedthattheanswerwouldnotbecomingtoday.DelegateJoannouwasreceptivetoChairSessomsstatement.ChairSessomsofferedthefloortoTACChairNealCrawford.TACChairCrawfordechoedpraiseforSecretaryLayneandMr.Kilpatrick.HerecountedthatthelastTACmeetinghadengagedafewitemswithDavidMillerthefinancialadvisorfromPFM.HeremarkedthateveryoneontheTACsharestheurgencyexpressedinthemeetingtoday.HethenrequestedthatMr.Millerprovideastrategicoverview.HealsoinvitedtheHRTACmemberstojointheTACmeetingthatwouldbereconvenedaftertheconclusionoftheHRTACRegularMeeting.HethenaskedMr.Kilpatrickwherethemetricofthe3‐yeartimelimitfortheenvironmentaloriginated.Mr.KilpatrickrespondedthatitisapracticeoftheFHWAtolookforre‐evaluationofdocumentsiftheyare3ormoreyearsold.Mr.Kilpatrickaddedthatwhenthedocumentsare6,8,10,12,15yearsold,thentheFHWAwilllookforaSEISorinsomecasesabrandnewEIS.Mr.DavidMillerbeganbygivingabriefhistoryofPFMandhisinteractionswithvarioustransportationandtollingfacilitiesaroundthecountry.Heremarkedthathisjobwasnottorecommendwhichprojectwasbetterthantheother,buttodeterminefinancialfeasibility.Hesummarizedthefunctionassellingbonds.HeexpectsthattheTACwillwanttoexplore20ormoredifferentscenarios,andheintendstobuildaflexiblemodelthatwillallowfortheevaluationof20ormorescenarios.



Mr.Millerpresentedaslidethatdescribedthemyriadoffactorsthatgointoafinanciallyfeasibleplanthatcanbepresentedtobondinvestors.Hisstatedgoalistobeabletobuildaplanthatwillattractinvestors.Hestatedthattheycouldgetinvestmentgradecreditratings.Mr.MillerexplainedthattheyweregoingtolookatHRTFfundsaswellasotherstateandfederalfundingthatmaybeavailable.HethenrecalledthepreviouslyhelddiscussionregardingtheLongRangeTransportationPlan,andnotedthatmostoftheprojectswereindeedinthatplanalready.Headdedthatthe$2.5billioninstateandfederalfundingmayormaynotstillbeavalidassumptionbasedontheimpactofHB2.Healsoaddedthat$4.4billionwasexpectedtocomefromtollrevenuegeneratedviaa$2.00tolltobeplacedontheHRBT,MMBT,andPatriotsCrossing.Mr.MillercontinuedthathewasaskedtoprovideestimatesoffundsavailablefromtheHRTFandtoputtogetherabondingpackage.HenotedanassumptionthatHRTACwouldissuerevenuebondsbackedbyvarioussourcesandcreateinpresentvaluetermsapproximately$3.8billion.Headdedthatthecoveragerevenuecouldbespentandincreasethetotalupto$5.4billion.Henotedthattherecentfigureisalotlessthantheoriginalforecast,duepartlytothegastaxandlowergasolineprices.Heexplainedthatinjustafewyears,theprojectedavailablefundsthroughtheHRTFhavebeenreducedby$1.5billion.Heremarkedthathedidnotknowifitwerepossibletogetbacktotheoriginalforecast.Heobservedthatcurrentprojectionsshowtheabilitytosupport$5.4billioninprojects,andcurrentprojectcostsareestimatedat$10.7billion.Henotedthattomaketheprojectshappen,essentiallythetaxrevenuesneededtobedoubled,forwhichhewasnotadvocating.HesuggestedthattheHRTACbereadyandabletoissuebondsbackedbytheHRTFifandwhentheyareneeded.Heofferedthatthiswasanewagencythatwouldbeofferinganewbondthathasnotbeenbondedbefore,andassuchwouldprobablyneedtogothroughabondvalidationprocess.HediscussedsomeofthetrafficresearchthathadbeencompletedthatindicatedrevenueestimatesforincorporatingHOTlanesintoexistingnetworkaresmallwhencomparedtoincrementalcosts.HereiteratedthathewasspeakingfromafinancialfeasibilityperspectiveandunderstandsthattheremaybesomepoliticalreasonwhyHOTisbeingconsideredoverotherpolicies.HerequestedaccesstowhomeverVDOTisusingtodothetrafficmodeling.HeexplainedtheregionaltollsystemconceptusingtheOrlando/OrangeCountyExpresswayAuthorityandNorthTexasTollwayAuthorityasexamples.Herelayed



thattheurbannetworkrepresentedbythetwoexamplesgivencouldbeverysimilartothe9projectsbeingreviewedbyHRTAC.Headdedthattheregionaltollsystemconceptismorecosteffectiveandtypicallyprovidesabetterbondratingwhencomparedtofinancingeachprojectindividually.Hegaveanoverviewofwhattheyarepreliminarilythinkingofforfinancingoptions.Hedescribed:

AmixofAAandAbondsbackedbytheHRTF; Hesuggestedaprocessofflowingresidualrevenueupwithtollrevenue; TIFIALoans; VTIBloans; TollFacilitiesRevolvingAccountoptions;and 9cor9dbonds.

Herecommendedgettingabondcounselonboard,especiallywiththeprobableneedtogothroughthebondvalidationprocess.Heremarkedthatthevalidationprocesscanbeaninemonthprocess.Heagainsuggestedgettingsomeadditionaltrafficandrevenuenumberstoputsomeframeworkaroundthedifferenttollingschemes.HefollowedthattheSEISisunderway,andassumptionschange.Heofferedthattheyweregoingtobuildaflexiblemodelanddevelopanongoingfinancialplanbasedonthebestinformationcurrentlyavailable.TACChairCrawfordaskedwhatadditionalinformationorresourceswereneededtobeabletomakearecommendation.Mr.MillernotedthatheaskedHRTACExecutiveDirectorKevinPageiftheycouldpiggybackonthecontractthatVDOThasfortrafficandrevenueconsulting.SecretaryLaynesuggestedthatHRTACgetinvestmentgradetrafficandrevenuestudiesgoingassoonaspossible.SecretaryLayneaddedthatbondvalidationwasaprudentcourse.Mr.MilleralsostatedthatthebondcounselwasrecommendedtoMr.Page.Mr.TomSheppardrecalledthattheHRTPOidentifiedfundingof$26billionby2035.HesuggestedthatHB2maybepartlyresponsibleforthe$16billioninreducedfundingalongwithslumpinggastaxrevenuesandotherfactors.Heaskedwhattheminimumamountmightbeforthegastaxtofundtheprojects.Mr.MillerofferedthattheHRTPOwasresponsibleformorethanjustthe9projectsgiventoHRTACforfunding,whichcouldaccountforthedifference.Healsosaidthattheyhadnotcomputedaminimumgastaxrevenuefloor,andwouldneedtoknowtheoriginalforecastnumbers.Mr.Sheppardaskedwhatfinancialconsiderationwasused.Mr.Millerrespondedthattheydon’thaveanythingonwhichtobaseaconsideration,andtheyhavenot



yetstartedrunningscenarios.Headdedthatthiscouldbeascenariotorunifsodirected.Mr.SheppardMillerobservedadiscrepancyinMr.DavidMiller’spresentationwheretherevenueprojectionsdon’tmatchexpectationsandarenotconsistent.Mr.DavidMillerofferedthattheoriginalforecastswereprovidedtotheHRTPObyVDOT,andthat2014wasapartialyear.Mr.SheppardMilleraskedformoreclarification,andMr.DavidMillerstatedthathewouldlookintoit.Mr.AlanKrasnoffremarkedthatheunderstoodtheUSCoastGuardtobeinchargeofdecidingbridgeheight.HeaskedifVDOTknewwhentheCoastGuardwouldbeprovidingtheheightinformation.Mr.JamesUtterbackrespondedthattheheightdeterminationwouldcomelateintheprocess.Heprovidedthattheheightdeterminationcouldcomeinthenextmonth.Mr.Utterbackaddedthattheheightdrivesthecost,andiftheconcernistopursuetheHB2scoring,andtheheighthasnotbeendeterminedatthetimeofsubmission,thenyousubmitpricingbasedonthehighestbridgeheight.Mr.KennethWrightaskedwhoforwardedtheinformationtoMr.DavidMillerreferencingthe$2.00tollontheHRBT,MMBT,andPatriot’sCrossing.Ms.DaleStithrespondedthatthenumberswereusedformodelingandplanningpurposesaddingthatHRTACistheentitythatmakesdecisionsregardingtolling.Mr.SheppardMillercommentedthattobesmokeandmirrors.Heexplainedthatifyouputa$10.00tollonthecrossingsyoucouldplanfor$20billion.TACChairNealCrawfordrequestedamotiontorecesstheTACmeeting.Mr.SheppardMillermadeaMotiontorecesstheTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMeeting;secondedbyMr.JoeFrank.TACChairCrawfordheldavoicevotetoapprovethemotion,andTheMotionCarriedUnanimously.TheHRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMeetingrecessedat11:22AM,endingtheJointSession.ReconvenedTACMeetingTheHRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMeetingreconvenedat11:43a.m.Mr.SheppardMillerbeganthesessioncommentingthathewasthemanthatledthecharge for the delay in the lastmeeting. He explained his previous position andreasoningforwantingthedelay.Hethennotedthathedoesnothavethatconcernanymore. Heexplainedthat ifyouadvanceaprojectwithout fullyunderstandingthe cost, you are functionally recommending one project over another. Mr. Joe



Frankquestioned ifhewas speaking in reference to the two itemson the currentagenda,whichwasconfirmedbyMr.Miller.Mr.Millercontinuedthatitwasn’tnecessarilyadvancingoneprojectoveranother,itwas in fact advancing the ability to get the knowledge needed to make therecommendation.Mr.FrankagreedwithMr.Miller’sassessmentandnotedthatheheldthesamebelief.MinutesofJuly14,2015HRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMeetingMr. Sheppard Miller Moved to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2015 HRTACTechnical Advisory Committee Meeting; seconded byMr. Joe Frank. The MotionCarried.Development Activities and Financial Plan Amendment for Certain HRTACProjectsMr.JamesUtterbackspokeabout2phasesoftheI‐64/I‐264Interchangeproject.Henotedthattheprojectwasfullyfundedatapproximately$300million.HeupdatedtheTAConthestatusoftheproject,includinginformationrelatedto:

WorkontheI‐264corridorstudy; Producingsomeoftheplanningdocuments; TheneedforengineeringforIMRorIJR;and Theneedforpreliminaryengineering.

Mr.Frankaskediftherewasdatatosuggestiftheprojectcouldbeconstrained.Mr.Utterbackrespondedthattheywerestilllookingatconceptsanddon’thaveagoodestimateyet.HeaddedthatroughcostestimatesshouldbeavailableinSeptember.Mr.MilleraskedifthiswasworkthatneededtobedonetoprovidedatafortheTACto make its decision. Mr. Utterback responded affirmatively. Mr. Sheppardexpressedsupport.Mr.Utterbackexplainedwhatwasneededintheformoffundingtoday. Hestatedthatapproximately$5millionwasneededtoday. HRTACExecutiveDirectorKevinPageaskedifthetotalamountofmoneywasneededatonceorifascheduleofwhenpartsofthetotalwouldbeneededwasavailable. Mr.Utterbackremarkedthathewould need to sit down and think through a schedule, and further noted that itwouldbeover“ayearorso.”Mr.Frankquestionedif$2milliontodaywouldgetthemthroughthenext60days,towhichMr.Utterbackresponded,“Absolutely.” Mr.FrankcontinuedthatbythattimeMr.Utterbackwouldbeabletoreturnwithaschedule,towhichMr.Utterbackrespondedintheaffirmative.Mr.Utterbackprovidedthefollowingregardingthetwoprojects;



Theyareidentifiedasphasesthatwillbefunded; $17millionofstatemoneyisontheprojects; Thefirstprojectwillbeadvertisedinthespring; Thefirstprojectwillcostapproximately$100million;and TheCommissionwillneedtoallocatemoneytothatproject.

Mr. Sheppardexpressed somepolicy confusion regardingwho is fundingprojects,andwhoisrecommendingfundingonprojects. Mr.TomInglima,HRTACCounsel,statedthatundertheHRTACconstitutionaldocuments,thereisanexpectationthatafundingplanwillbeusedforanyapprovedproject.Headdedthat:

The Secretary of Transportation presented an initial funding plan inSeptember2014that includedanumberofdifferentprojects includingthefirstphaseoftheI‐64/I‐264interchangeproject;

Theplandidnotincludetheadditionalwork;and Thefundingpresentedintheplanwaspay‐as‐you‐go.

Mr. Inglima stated that HRTAC is looking to the TAC for a funding plan goingforward that restates or replaces the initial plan, specifically to recommend anamendmenttotheinitialplantoallowadditionalpay‐as‐you‐godollarstobespentontheadditionaldevelopmentactivityonthetwoprojects.Mr.Inglimaaddedthathesawitasadiscreterequestandnotapolicydecision.Mr.Frankaskedwhythiswasn’tbeingpaidforbytheTPOwithregionalfundsthattheyhaveasopposedtoHRTACfunds.Mr.Utterbacksuggestedthereasoncouldbebecausetheprojectwasn’tintheSixYearprogram.Mr.HarryLesterrecalledthiswasthethirdtimetheyhaddiscussedthisissue,andthathenowunderstandswhatishappening.Henotedhissupport.Mr.Milleraskedabout thestatusof thenineprojects, and theHRTACapprovalofthenineprojects. Mr. Inglimaclarified that therehadnotbeenanyappropriationfor full fundingoftheI‐64/I‐264Interchangeproject. Hestatedthatdevelopmentactivities had been approved. He added that the body would not enter into acontractofthatmagnitudewithoutafundingplan. ChairCrawfordaddedthatthefundingplanwasthejoboftheTAC.Mr.MilleraskedMr.Utterback for clarificationof theamount requested for the I‐64/I‐264Interchangeproject.Mr.Utterbacksaid$5million,sotheywouldn’thavetocomebackrightawayformore.Mr.MillerthenaskedhowmuchwasbeingrequestedfortheRoute460connectorproject. Mr. Utterback responded that $2 million would suffice. Mr. Utterbackcontinued that the I‐64/I‐264 would most likely be a categorical exclusion. He



addedthattheRoute58/Route460projectwouldneedanEIS,whichwouldcomeinacoupleofyears,andpotentiallyrequiremoremoney.Mr.Frankaskedforclarificationofthe460projectbeingdiscussed,notingthathissource told him that the 460 projectwas dead. Mr. Utterback explained that theprojectbeingdiscussedatthisTACmeetingisdifferentfromtheonethathadalltheArmyCorpsofEngineerproblemstowhichMr.Frankwasreferencing.Mr.SheppardMillermadeaMotiontoApprovetherecommendationof$5millionfortheI‐64/I‐264Interchangeprojectand$2millionfortheRoute460/58/13corridor;secondedbyMr.HarryLester.TACChairCrawfordheldavoicevotetoapprovethemotion,andTheMotionCarriedUnanimously.HRTACProjectsFinancing:DavidMiller,PFMConsultingChairCrawfordexpressedappreciation for getting a specific answerpreviously totheneededresourcesquestion.Mr. Sheppard Miller asked Mr. David Miller if achieving a bond rating of Apresupposesthefull faithandcreditoftheCommonwealth,or ifwasbasedpurelyontherevenuestream.Mr.DavidMillerrespondedthatiswasbasedpurelyontherevenuestream.HeaddedthatanAAratingwaspossibleiftheyputinconservativeenoughcovenants.Mr.SheppardMilleraskedwhatthedifferencewouldbeifthefullfaithandcreditoftheCommonwealthwereadded.Mr.DavidMillerstatedthatapureguesswouldbe$100million,andthatthecreditspreadbetweenAandAAisnotmuch.HRTACExecutiveDirectorKevinPage suggested thatMr.DavidMiller offer somediscussionregardingdifferent risksassociatedwithdifferent typesof toll revenuecollectionfacilitiesandhowtheycanaffectbondingandratemaking.Mr. David Miller offered that flat toll rates were previously considered, but nowcommunities are looking for alternatives including transponder tolls, and videotolls. He added that in some cases, frequent commuters could be given reducedrates.Henotedthatthetranspondermethodismorereliableandcheapertocollect,andthatvideocollectionwasmoreexpensive. Healsomentionedtimeofdayandcongestion pricing differentials as additional considerations. He emphasized thatbeforeyouissueanytollrevenuebonds,allthenuancedassumptionsandplanningresearchmustbecompleted.HRTACProjectsStatus



Mr.JamesLongpresentedinformationregardingthestatusofvariousprojects.Henoted:

I‐64WideningProjectSegment1wasindesignstatusandheadingtowardspermitstatus,withleftlanewideningstartingin2016;

I‐64WideningProjectSegment2wasinprocurementstatus;3designbuildteams have been short listed; proposals are expected at the end ofSeptember;priceproposalswillbegininNovember;

I‐64 Widening Project Segment 3 progress is slated to start in 2017,dependentonfunding;

I‐64 Widening Project Segment 4 (the Fort Eustis Boulevard InterchangeProject)activityisexpectedtostartin2017,pendingfunding;

Today, theTAC approved recommending toHRTAC approval of additionalfunding for the I‐64/I‐264 Interchange; Phases 1 and 2 are the currentprojectsandhavebeenfundedforPEandRight‐of‐Way;Phase1advertisesinApril2016;Phase2advertisesinearly2017;

I‐64SouthsideWideninghas$5millioninnon‐HRTFfundsallocatedfortheenvironmental document;HRTACallocated$20million from theHRTF forPE;currentlywaitingfortheRoDandwaitingforthe2040LongRangePlan–whichisfedbytheHRTACfinancialplan;bridgeheightistobesetbytheCoastGuard;

Hampton Roads Crossing has the SEIS going on now; it was allocated $5million by the Commission; citizen information meetings regardingalternatives expected in December 2015 or January 2016; public hearingsfor the Draft SEIS in the Summer of 2016; Final Document planned forsummer2017;

Patriots Crossing and I‐664Widening has not had anywork at this point;and

Route 460/58/13 Connector Project is not funded and nowork has beencompletedonit;theEnvironmentalDocumentisanticipatedtobestartedin2018witha2‐yearprocesstogettoaRoD.

Mr.FrankaskediffundingwastheonlyreasonforthedelayontheI‐64WideningProjectSegments3and4,andwhatwascausingthedelay.Mr.Utterbackrespondedthat primarily funding was the cause of the delay. He added that the fundingavailabilityconcernstemmedfromtheSecretary’splanpresentedtothecommitteeinNovember2014,usingapay‐as‐you‐gomodel.Mr.SheppardMilleraskediftherewasanyanticipationoffederalfundallocationonSegments 2, 3, or 4. Mr. Utterback responded in the negative, stating that theywouldhavetogothoughHB2togetthestatemoney.Mr.FrankaskedMr.Pageifsomekindofanalysisofwhatfundswouldbebecomingavailable from the Highway Trust Fund could be presented to TAC at the next



meeting.HeaskediftheHRTFfundswerereflectiveoftheregionalgastaxincreaseand regional sales tax increase. He noted that before HB2, there was a fundingstream from the Commonwealth. He asked for clarification ofwho controls that,andwhathappenstothosefunds.Mr. Tom Inglima offered thatHB1887 changed thewhole architecture, and notedthat the only funding coming on a dedicated basis now was the component thatflowstotheConstructionDistrictGrantProgram,whichisnotalotofmoney.Mr. Sheppard Miller summarized that the monies are going to have to becompetitively pursued through the HB2 scoring, and other regions are going toscore better because they are more challenged than this region. Mr. Frankexpressedappreciationandunderstandingofthesituation,andfurtheremphasizedinterestinmakingcertaineveryoneunderstoodthecriticalneedtogetaregionallydevelopedandregionallyadoptedfundingplaninplace.Mr.SheppardMilleraskedforconfirmationthatthestatehasalreadyallocated$17milliontotheI‐64/I‐264Interchangeproject. Mr. JimLongconfirmedMr.Miller’sstatement.Mr.Utterbackaddedthatthe$17millionwasfrompreviouslyallocatedstatemoney.Mr.Utterback commented that if aprojectwanted to go forHB2money, itwouldhave tobescored. Ina scenarioheprovided,henoted that if a regionwanted tomoveaproject forwardforHB2scoringthatalreadyhadmoneyallocated itcoulddoso,andthefactthattheprojectalreadyhadmoneyputtowardsitwouldmakeitscorebetter.Mr. Long presented a visual representation depicting how the projects progressthroughthevariousstages,andhowtheprojectshavebeenplannedinastaggeredprocesstoallowfor thevariousphasesofprojects torunsimultaneously,pendingfunding.Mr.UtterbackaddedthatthiswasatentativespendingplanasVDOTseesitandwouldworkwithHRTACtoexplainandadjustthemodels.Hefurthernotedthattheplanwastobeupdatedmonthly.Mr.Utterbackemphasizedthatputtingabig project into the schedule will significantly change the spending plan for allprojects.Mr.Frankquestioned if considerationof sea level risewasbeinggivenduring thedesignoftheprojects.Mr.Longrespondedintheaffirmative.Mr.Frankaskedfromwhere the sea level rise analysisdatawasbeingderived. Mr. Longprovided thatdocumentsfromtheArmyCorpsofEngineersdatawasused.Mr. Frank then expressedhis concern that interstates andother state roadswerebeingconstructedwithtreelinescomingtooclosetoroadmargins. Mr.Utterback



providedthatcurrentmethodsofconstruction,withnewstormwatermanagementrequirements (capture and treatment of water) is causing significantly greaterfootprintrequirementsfornewroadconstructionprojects.Mr. Harry Lester requested electronic copies of the presentation by Mr. Long.DirectorPageofferedthattheywillprovideitandinadditionwouldpostitonthewebsite.NewBusinessNonewbusinesswasofferedordiscussed.HRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMeetingScheduleThe nextmeetings for the HRTAC Technical Advisory CommitteeMeetingwill beSeptember15,2015at9:30a.m.AdjournmentWith no further business to come before the Hampton Roads TransportationAccountabilityCommissionTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee, themeeting adjournedat12:32p.m._________________________________________NealCrawfordHRTACTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeChair

Documents

AGENDA - Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability ... TAC Meeting Agenda Pa… · Technical Advisory Committee Meeting │ October 13, 2015 │ Agenda Hampton Roads Transportation